It's good to see all the red santa hats

soros

For me? Its Kropotkin.

Attached: 1521669423845.png (960x960, 236K)

Bolsonaro is a zogbot. Too beta to do anything.
I have knowledge enough to know that you'll die after I put a bullet into your small head.
Bourgeious. Bourgeois and jew

Me on the bottom right

Attached: PicsArt_11-29-10.31.09.jpg (1440x1446, 111K)

>AMLO
>communist
lmao

for me, it's Ho Chi Minh

knowledge? I'd say it's fairly certain you're the ignorant one.

Socialism is the solution.

For me it's el camarada

On the internet
>i'm a based socialist and we'll grab guns if necessary!
In real life
>guns scare me, we need to disarm the people

Why are Brazilians so delusional thinking their corrupt and incompetent military can do anything to Venezuela, even less so now that Russia is supporting them militarily.

Attached: FB5DC65A-EAC1-47D6-83FE-09D61A2941EB.jpg (1242x1767, 942K)

>guns scare me, we need to disarm the people
I never said that.
Wtf is wrong with your people?

The solution for pampered sheltered faggots like you to be lined up against the wall and shot.
Socialists are the first to go once the socialist insurrection happens, dumb cunt.

>Socialists are the first to go once the socialist insurrection happens, dumb cunt.
hahaha. Is that your boos told you?

oh look, it's more nonsense by an angry right wing runt

Why are you associating Marx with a consumerist holiday?

what your boss*

Lmao the Brazilian communist party is 500k strong if they arm through Russian and Venezuelan weapons supplies, your shit hole of a country will be plunged into civil war so, he’ll go ahead start purging man.

Attached: 3CCBFBAE-50F0-40B5-B515-9E69AA17227B.jpg (963x682, 134K)

I associate guillotines with french kings as well.

Because there would be no socialism without capitalism

literally what

It's actual history, go read about what happened in Grenada, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Afghanistan...
Socialists have always been killing socialists, in fact that's who they kill the most.
It's astounding how little you cattle know of history, your own ideology or anything else for that matter. Truly only low IQ and low emotional intelligence imbeciles praise socialism, because they imagine themselves being at the top end when in reality they'd be in ditches.

Can't wait to see the proletariat drag Trump out of the white house into the street by his ankles and hang him with all the other porkies once the great depression begins

you just named countries, specify what you're talking about.
so far you made 0 (zero) arguments

I can't wait to see them try and getting shot

Based

Attached: 576ACD56-7AED-4BE7-BDC0-58038E81A5B2.jpg (720x553, 42K)

Capitalism, then came the Revolution due to it's inherent contradictions, and then communism happens

>being an unironic bootlicker
Why? Are you a man or a dog?

>Believing in emotional intelligence memes
You're the low IQ retard here.
He can't. I spoke with this zogbot before. He just repeat what other right-wingers told him.

A rich man. Fuck the proles.

You're on Jow Forums. I doubt you're rich.

In all these countries marxist/leninists were killed or put into prison camps once marxist/leninists got into power, or a marxist/leninist in power was assassinated by marxist/leninists.
A socialist leader knows that socialists that socialists are his biggest threat, because all socialists have a delusion of grandeur and think that now that the insurrection has happened they'll all be in power, which of course can't happen, so they'll plot to overthrow it under the pretext of being more socialist than the current socialists.
It's a repeating cycle that can be easily observed in history and that's what would happen to you people, the low caste, the uneducated proponents that are only useful in spreading propaganda prior to the insurrection but will become threats afterwards.

You couldn't even elaborate how can socialism operate without maximum state. Neither could the argie. You two are children.

Richer than the proles who would allegedly drag Trump out of the White House for sure

>factory fetishists think capitalism is to blame for global warming

So silencing corruption within your party is bad? No wonder your country is a corrupt shithole.

Attached: E2477B7B-F7AA-4817-8554-5C85B732B4DC.jpg (750x1334, 80K)

>all of these assumptions
you need to calm down, you're not making any sense.
yes, there's been infighting, there's literally infighting with capitalism as well, and so there was in feudalism, what's your point?
we want the liberation of the working class, I don't know how you translate that into "delusion of grandeur"
what makes us uneducated exactly? or a threat after a revolution?

like I said before, you're making no sense whatsoever.

Do you get off in making retarded posts?

Don’t you have a Norf Fc game to watch.

that picture's wrong though

What makes you uneducated? Really? Anyone intelligent and sane knows socialism is a retarded meme.
You want the working class to own the means of production yeah? Why don't you go ahead and explain how to achieve and maintain that. PLEASE DO.

shut the fuck up monkey
we (fascists) will liberate the working middle classes by empowering them with the ability to pile the skulls of communists, postmodernists, neoliberals and members of financial capital they’re in alliance with up to the fucking sky so we never have to deal with them again

Bet this guy doesn’t even read.

Attached: E0A5A7E0-D532-4C75-9996-E76AFB0E5E48.jpg (509x534, 37K)

>You couldn't even elaborate how can socialism operate without maximum state
Dude, why would we want socialism without a state? This would be anarchism. Ask Makhno for it.
Do you work as a pornstar in one of these czech porn companies?
It actualy is. In Brazil if you're a party member or someone that received help from a party and you decide to oppose the corrupt members of said party, you're considered a traitor.

So you DON'T disagree that socialism requires maximum control of the state then?

Violent Revolution you fucking soyboy.
I respect fascists. But not nationalizing all industry was a mistake.
Look at Krupp. They betrayed the government and started to send their money to other countries

He's probably touching upon the reason why communism/socialism never happens and that being some smart psychopath using the stupid idealists to gain power, assembling a clique of loyalists and then disposing of said idealists who would go "but that's not what we fought for".

I do have an extensive collection of Czech porn but I don't work in it

>how do you maintain

Are you a subhuman or are you just pretending to be retarded?
We want the bloody dictatorship of the proletariat. You can't get it without state

Same way you would maintain a capitalist industry, but without focus on private profit.
You seem to know not even the bare minimum of marxist theory

you just saying socialism is "a retarded meme" doesn't make it so, you're gonna have to explain why.
and if you really don't understand how collectivization works then I don't think you should be using words like "retarded" to describe other people.

Those are actually China hats, to celebrate to new era of Chinese conquest over the perfidious western failed imperialist.

Attached: Mao Me A River.jpg (194x259, 10K)

>He's probably touching upon the reason why communism/socialism never happens
there's socialism in Cuba and North Korea, and there was socialism in the USSR, China, Vietnam and the eastern bloc although I wouldn't really count them as separate from the USSR with the exception of Yugoslavia.

neither could I what? there's always a state in Marxism, why are you creating non existing arguments?

You keep doing verbal gymnastics. All societies need a state, I want you to confirm that you want a MAXIMUM state. Stop dodging, coward faggot.
That's not an answer, in capitalism the most qualified by any definition is the ones that maintains production, because a boss is needed. You believe in proletariat ownership, that means everyone owns it, so you have to be able to elaborate how everyone runs a business at the same time.
I'll explain why when you, or any other socialist, can explain how to execute your dialectics in the real world.

>I'll explain why when you, or any other socialist, can explain how to execute your dialectics in the real world.
this is not an answer.

So all that infighting and killing of in-party opposition is just A-OK and a necessary part of socialism, huh?

how the fuck did you get that from my post?

What is a maximum state? One where state controls all aspects of your life? We're already living in one.
>in capitalism the most qualified by any definition is the ones that maintains production,
Not really. The ones with most money is the ones that maintains the production. You could argue that they're rich because their productive, but this is another lie. The government often fund and save bankrupt companies from crashing. See GM
> because a boss is needed.
Yes, That's why nearly all socialist states had managers

Mao
youtube.com/watch?v=TVEatEO-CTE

Attached: 5271947185741.jpg (500x702, 71K)

The reason why you're retarded is because you believe in worker ownership but you cannot for the life of you explain how it could ever be fucking possible.

It happens, but it's not necessarialy OK.
The same has ever happened in bourgeois revolutions, notably the French Revolution

Fucked up grammar.
Sorry boyz

Well, commies when confronted with the atrocities commies/socialists committed on one another usually go "But that wasn't real socialism/communism, it was state capitalism/whatever". Since you don't, that means you have to explain how the inevitable culling of the revolutionaries is okay.

>what is a revolution

Ok, we're getting somewhere, slowly at baby steps.
Yes, a maximum state is one that decides who works on what, meaning there is no freedom of choice, the state needs you to work at something that serves the interests of the state.
Where they control media, art and entertainment, because you can't afford them selling the idea of freedom or capitalist excesses to the people.
There is no supply and demand, the state decides the demand not the public.
Do you agree with this and that this is required for a socialist society as by the leninist definition?

Leave the comparisons to capitalism out, let's focus on defining socialism, saying that we live in a maximum state has no value.

imagine making so many assumptions.
what "inevitable culling of the revolutionaries" are you talking about?

My man, once the revolution happens, how does the society maintain itself with everyone owning everything collectively?

What previous "communist" leaders have done is not an argument against socialism

>a maximum state decides who works on what
No, do you not know what a commune is?

I would love to see a big ass communist revolution in south america, oh how my heart would sing!

Attached: Jewdiful.jpg (269x187, 9K)

Oh, it's that stupid commie argie again.

>Yes, a maximum state is one that decides who works on what, meaning there is no freedom of choice, the state needs you to work at something that serves the interests of the state.
not a thing if there's democracy.
>Where they control media, art and entertainment, because you can't afford them selling the idea of freedom or capitalist excesses to the people.
false, the state doesn't have to "control" shit, just ban capitalist propaganda.
>There is no supply and demand, the state decides the demand not the public.
this is false, there's supply and demand, it just doesn't govern prices, it's used to plan the economy.

Yes, something that can only work in extreme small numbers and as such no socialist regime has ever been a commune. Not even once.

Since it's false then who enforces socialism?

why would that be a problem?
look, I can do the same:
>My man, once the revolution happens, how does the society maintain itself with individuals owning things individually?
but capitalism still exists, how is it possible? yes, that's how dumb you're being right now.

>Yes, a maximum state is one that decides who works on what, meaning there is no freedom of choice, the state needs you to work at something that serves the interests of the state.
Oh, so it's not socialism.
You could choose your job in most socialist states, except perharps Cambodia I think. They would even fund your education.
>Where they control media, art and entertainment, because you can't afford them selling the idea of freedom or capitalist excesses to the people.
You can allow all of it, though it is undesirable.
>There is no supply and demand, the state decides the demand not the public.
The public, that is the working class, is the state.
>Leave the comparisons to capitalism out, let's focus on defining socialism, saying that we live in a maximum state has no value.
Impossible. Socialism is a evolution of capitalism and is therefore tainted by many of it's sins

>something that can only work in extreme small numbers

Attached: 1534200096246.gif (400x400, 26K)

you can have a state that doesn't decide who works on what and where there's freedom of choice.
why do have so much trouble understanding the concept of a democracy?
the people participate in the planning of the economy.
the people are the government, through democratic legislation.
this is not that difficult, seriously.

I can easily explain how. Capital is interest and they'll trade capital with other people for things they require or just vainly want. It balances itself out as the more interest you have the more private property you'll own, but everyone else is also competing for the same interest so if you stop supplying the demand you'll eventually lose your capital.
The people that made your house got money for it, the people that sold you your TV got money for it, the mutual exchange is everyone's interests and that's why it functions and has been observed being performed even among fucking animals. It's extremely simple and anyone with a brain can understand how it works.
Now explain how collective ownership works.

CHORA NEGS

No you can't fucking pick your jobs, stop saying historical lies. The state needs food and energy and infrastructure and it's just going to let you be a sculptor that without a market doesn't even have a public? The idea that you can have liberty under socialism is completely irrational. What happens if people decides they want to do stuff that serves no purpose and brings no revenue to the state but the state still needs to provide them with "free" services?
You can't comprehend basic demand rules.

>the mutual exchange is everyone's interests and that's why it functions
imagine believing this
lmao

why do poor people exist then? because private property is theft.
how does it work if the working class keeps getting fucked? ah yes, because there's a state with armed forces defending private property.
now imagine the same but with socialism.
not that difficult.

>but everyone else is also competing for the same interest so if you stop supplying the demand you'll eventually lose your capital.
Actualy, once they start losing capital they'll just bribe the government to give them free money or one-sided contracts.
>Now explain how collective ownership works.
Similar to shareholders in a company.

>No you can't fucking pick your jobs, stop saying historical lies.
I wasn't talking about history, stop replying to me with imaginary arguments we "had"
seriously.
>The state needs food and energy and infrastructure and it's just going to let you be a sculptor that without a market doesn't even have a public?
yes, this is what's called surplus production, you only need to work for so much to meet your monthly needs, the rest is surplus, if everyone works then it's really easy to meet the "food and engery and infrastructure" quota required, so yes, you can be a sculptor if you want.
can't comprehend how your mind can't grasp this concept.
>The idea that you can have liberty under socialism is completely irrational.
yes, I believe this because a Brazilian said it on a cambodian basket weaving image board with absolutely nothing to back it up.
>What happens if people decides they want to do stuff that serves no purpose and brings no revenue to the state but the state still needs to provide them with "free" services?
this is the democratic part of it, people will always chose to meet the surviving quota as I explained earlier, there's no "revenue", whatever the fuck you mean with that.
"free" services aren't free, it's paid for with the surplus production, that I explained earlier.
>You can't comprehend basic demand rules.
you can't accuse people of things you're guilty of.

>No you can't fucking pick your jobs, stop saying historical lies
Source? The Soviet Union used to offer higher "wages" for anyone willing to work in isolated regions.
> The state needs food and energy and infrastructure and it's just going to let you be a sculptor that without a market doesn't even have a public?
But there was artists in the Soviet Union. The vast majority of artists in history have been financed by the government. The ones that weren't were mostly meme artists whose art was used as money laundering.
>What happens if people decides they want to do stuff that serves no purpose and brings no revenue to the state but the state still needs to provide them with "free" services?
It's simple. The state does not need to provide them with free services.
Want to be a NEET? Good, but don't expect to receive meals paid with another man's labour.

you guys are aight

Attached: 1200px-Rb-star.svg.png (1200x1142, 36K)

Did you lived in socialist Yugoslavia?

I don't like anarchists because they deny the extraction of surplus value.

nah
i was going to read some of the debates they had about self-management, though, out of theoretical-practical interest
why would i?

why would you what? deny it? I don't know, you tell me.

yeah, why would i deny it?